Don't agree there. There will be no definitive time where "the job is done." The longer we stay and stabilize, the more time they have to get themselves up to task. Of course, we can't stay forever.

10 years is the estimate from Petraeus from previous comments (before he inherited the hot seat) assuming adequate boots on the ground.

Kosovo peacekeepers since 1999. There are 16,000 troops there...want to compare the geographic size of Kosovo vs Iraq and back of the envelope estimated troop requirements in 2015?

No flipping way. Even ignoring the current political environment. Factor in the political environment and the probability we stay past 2010 in USEFUL numbers is very low. The probability of international help is zero. Pretty much all the western european peacekeepers are already allocated to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Turkish, Pakistani and other nation peacekeepers...well, that could be interesting in the Chinese curse sort of way.

Yes, but it is relevant to the equation of how effective we will be after Bush draws down US forces this fall to help the 2008 elections.

We still have too many guys sitting in super fobs in (relative) air conditioned luxury, sipping lattes (no shit) and eating ice cream when their iraqi counterparts are without running water.

Contrast this to the marines that often live in the same conditions as their Iraqi counterparts and get to know their local environment rather than leave their bases in Bradleys for patrols.

Petraeus and the 101st operated the same way which is why his areas (mosul and nineveh) did well where the 4 ID areas ended up as complete clusters.

It's gotten a lot better though but when you operate in the field force protection gets really hard which means more CNN fodder. Sit in the FOBs and casualties go way down. Effectiveness goes down a lot faster.

The odds of Petrateus surviving past 2008 are pretty slim. He's going to get the axe once the Dems take the White House unless Bush jettisons him first.

All in all I just don't see the case where we stay long enough with sufficient troops and operate in the way required to achieve victory (i.e. stable Iraqi government). IMHO you're engaging in the same wishful thinking that got us into this mess anyway.

Insufficient national will. Did not apply decisive force. Zero thought on exit strategy. Etc. We failed too many criteria in the Powell doctrine and we're gonna pay big time.

That's the way it is in your deluded world, I realize. You ignore any progress whatsoever and continue to root for failure.

That boat has left the dock.

Agreed.

Don't agree there. There will be no definitive time where "the job is done." The longer we stay and stabilize, the more time they have to get themselves up to task. Of course, we can't stay forever.

Not directed at me, so.....

You are positively insane. I really think you need to seek help. Are you telling me, honestly, that you are not aware of any evidence that the surge has been effective? Because if so, you're as bad as jimmac. I am, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, aware of two pieces of good news. Pardon me...three. No wait...four. But you know what, I'm not going to post them. I'm going to let you find them because having this pissing contest is just utterly stupid. You're taking the most non-controversial claim, that being there is good news showing the surge is having at least some positive effects, and you're debating it instead of any number of things we [i]could/i] be debating. As for ranting, I'm not the one posting in 24 point bold faced font, screaming at the computer screen.

Whatever. You're just playing games. As for Iran, I see you insist on portraying anyone who disagrees with your insane anti-American/anti-Irsraeli view as a war monger. I don't want them "nuked" and I would prefer strongly not to see an attack. I've said it over and over, but you don't listen. to you, anyone who thinks that it Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, that it should obey UN resolutions instead of denouncing them within minutes of passage and that President Tom is dangerous....well that person just wants to nuke the world. It's fucking hyoperbolic strawman nonsense.

At least your presenting an opinion now instead of pretending it's a fact. But I disagree with your opinion anyway, because your central premise is wrong to begin with. The end goal is not to pull out, it's a result of being done with the mission to a satisfactory degree. Pulling out is the result, not the goal. And I do think we can get out of there in many different ways, some being better than others.

" Yes ladies and gentlemen that latest from Bizzaro world where black = white, right = left, and pig have wings! "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Not going to be baited into it though that was a nice try. I am every bit as knowledgeable as anyone else. I'm certainly not going to respond to this line of posting any further. I've got nothing to prove.

Quote:

Might be a bit better to take a lower profile in these discussions in future though as there are quite a few people here who do bother to inform themselves of the latest developments. Just an idea.

Coming from YOU?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

10 years is the estimate from Petraeus from previous comments (before he inherited the hot seat) assuming adequate boots on the ground.

Kosovo peacekeepers since 1999. There are 16,000 troops there...want to compare the geographic size of Kosovo vs Iraq and back of the envelope estimated troop requirements in 2015?

No flipping way. Even ignoring the current political environment. Factor in the political environment and the probability we stay past 2010 in USEFUL numbers is very low. The probability of international help is zero. Pretty much all the western european peacekeepers are already allocated to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Turkish, Pakistani and other nation peacekeepers...well, that could be interesting in the Chinese curse sort of way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

Yes, but it is relevant to the equation of how effective we will be after Bush draws down US forces this fall to help the 2008 elections.

We still have too many guys sitting in super fobs in (relative) air conditioned luxury, sipping lattes (no shit) and eating ice cream when their iraqi counterparts are without running water.

Contrast this to the marines that often live in the same conditions as their Iraqi counterparts and get to know their local environment rather than leave their bases in Bradleys for patrols.

Petraeus and the 101st operated the same way which is why his areas (mosul and nineveh) did well where the 4 ID areas ended up as complete clusters.

It's gotten a lot better though but when you operate in the field force protection gets really hard which means more CNN fodder. Sit in the FOBs and casualties go way down. Effectiveness goes down a lot faster.

The odds of Petrateus surviving past 2008 are pretty slim. He's going to get the axe once the Dems take the White House unless Bush jettisons him first.

All in all I just don't see the case where we stay long enough with sufficient troops and operate in the way required to achieve victory (i.e. stable Iraqi government). IMHO you're engaging in the same wishful thinking that got us into this mess anyway.

Insufficient national will. Did not apply decisive force. Zero thought on exit strategy. Etc. We failed too many criteria in the Powell doctrine and we're gonna pay big time.

Vinea

I don't think they'd can him. The situation might be different in terms of number of troops by then. My thinking is that we'll start to draw down next Spring, getting down under 100,000. Then we'll be at around 50,000 for a long time. A LONG time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficerDigby

There is now a very strong for lowering the presence.

By whom? And when?

Quote:

Given a bit of space Sunni insurgence will now get on with 'dealing' with Alqaida.

I don't even know what that means.

Quote:

US presence now just putting off the inevitable in Iraq now. And Alqaida fills in the gap.

What is the inevitable exactly? Having the country taken over? Yeah...let's jst bail. That's the can-do American spirit!

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Not going to be baited into it though that was a nice try. I am every bit as knowledgeable as anyone else. I'm certainly not going to respond to this line of posting any further. I've got nothing to prove.

Coming from YOU?

I don't think they'd can him. The situation might be different in terms of number of troops by then. My thinking is that we'll start to draw down next Spring, getting down under 100,000. Then we'll be at around 50,000 for a long time. A LONG time.

By whom? And when?

I don't even know what that means.

What is the inevitable exactly? Having the country taken over? Yeah...let's jst bail. That's the can-do American spirit!

Before we have that can do american spirit lets make sure we are doing the right thing.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Before we have that can do american spirit lets make sure we are doing the right thing.

Mkay...answer me this:

You broke into someone's house that you thought, right or wrong, was on fire (it wasn't) and sprayed water all over the place pretty much turning it into a wreck.

The "right" thing at that point is to:

A) clean it up even though it might bankrupt you.
B) run away and let it be someone else's problem.

That you broke in and watered down the place is now history. Whether you had the right, whether you really thought it was on fire or not, whether the intel on the fire was just wrong or fabricated is now in the past and irrelevant to the fact you're standing hip deep in muddy water with bits of some other fellow's possession floating about you.

If you believe that Bush contrived evidence to illegally/unethically/whatever invade iraq then we have an even greater obligation to the Iraqi people for royally fucking up their lives. It was bad enough under Saddam. About the only thing positive we've added is the ability to emigrate if so inclined.

This isn't a dis on the troops. If the military failed then it was a failure of leadership both military and civilian.

We're going to do Option B. Not because its the right thing to do but for a variety of other reasons. It will be forgotten soon enough, just like Vietnam.

Vinea

PS For the record, I believe today, just as I did 4 years ago, that invading Iraq was wrong and the evidence for WMDs weak and that Iraq was not a significant threat to the US.

However, is what we're still doing in Iraq "cleaning up the mess" or making it worse?

If we try cleaning up the house in your analogy, and only end up burning it down, burning off an arm in the process, as well as securing our bankruptcy and likely criminal prosecution, wouldn't leaving it be have been a better option?

I only say that, because unless we have a DRASTIC change in strategy, that's what's going to happen. The situation in Iraq will get WORSE, not better, more of our soldiers will die, countless more Iraqis will die, we'll dig ourselves deeper into insurmountable debt and the international community will finally have had enough, when we lose all remaining credit and the value of the dollar makes pesos rubles and lira look like they would have been better investments. Oh, and fundamentalist Islam will be stronger than ever.

Frank, ask your buddy WTF is he going to accomplish engineering wise if we draw down and sulk in super FOBs? Half the (army) troops we have now do nothing but maintain the FOBs anyway (exaggeration but still). I mean WTH are we shipping millions of cases of bottled water to FOBs...isn't that what the the ROWPUs are for?

vinea,

I talked with the person in question on Friday, and mentioned what I posted here. In general, the person told me not to say too much about this or anything that wasn't already in the public domain. I told the person that I am not in the habit of naming names, etceteras.

When I was an employee of the government, I had a security clearance of "Secret" as did this person, I remember when this person got a TS security clearance, they do a serious background check, I've known this person for ~25 years now, and I was one of several government employees that were interviewed for this person's TS security clearance.

I also believe (IMHO) that this person would see this as just an alternative path to obtaining their 2nd star.

Just to let the rest of you people know, this person is as much of a conservative as many of you think that I am a flaming liberal, and believe it or not, we get along very well, our respective skills are very complementary, and I have a lot of respect for this individual, as I do for today's military!

The corps has long wanted to open bottling plants in Iraq, officials said. Currently, bottled water - the preferred drink in Iraq - comes in via truck from Kuwait, Jordan or Turkey. Water is bulky and takes a lot of logistical space. Drivers run the risk of hitting improvised explosive devices, car bombs or small arms fire. Bottling the water in Iraq takes that many military and civilian truckers off the road, officials explained.

So it appears to me that the military has the capability to obtain, purify, and bottle it's own water. Of course, you need to be near an adequate water source/supply to begin with.

Also from my running and hiking days, in hot and/or humid environments (Mississippi (hot and humid) and the southwest (mountain hiking, very hot and dry)) the typical rule is one pint (~ pound) of water per mile to prevent dehydration. And as we all know 130 degrees F in Iraq would certainly qualify for this rough rule of thumb. Heck even sitting in shade in that kind of heat with what all the soldiers have to wear ...

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

A few months ago, George W. Bush was in Pakistan and advertised and supported the use of nuclear power.

How is Iran any different? They are a modern society, even when US hardliners want their people to think the Iranians still live in tents.

If I recall, there was legislation passed in the aftermath of 9/11 that allowed Bush power to do as he pleased in the middle east to defeat "terrorism". I believe, without stating explicitly Iran, Congress has already given him permission.

I was trying to find the legislation that allowed this, but I wasn't quite sure where to find it. So take that claim with a grain of salt.

I've said it before I'll say it again. Screw the Surge. The Middle East Crisis of the 21st century is on our doorstep.

However, is what we're still doing in Iraq "cleaning up the mess" or making it worse?

It's better with us there right now than it would be if we left.

Quote:

If we try cleaning up the house in your analogy, and only end up burning it down, burning off an arm in the process, as well as securing our bankruptcy and likely criminal prosecution, wouldn't leaving it be have been a better option?

True, but that's not what's happening.

Quote:

I only say that, because unless we have a DRASTIC change in strategy, that's what's going to happen. The situation in Iraq will get WORSE, not better, more of our soldiers will die, countless more Iraqis will die, we'll dig ourselves deeper into insurmountable debt and the international community will finally have had enough, when we lose all remaining credit and the value of the dollar makes pesos rubles and lira look like they would have been better investments. Oh, and fundamentalist Islam will be stronger than ever.

Well, it's getting better, so that's not true. It's just taking a long time. And at some point, we can't be the main security force their anymore. It's true that more of our soldiers will die...but that is a risk of being in the military. Overall, we've lost a very low number of people during a five year military operation.

I disagree about what the "international community" will do. The US economy is still the engine that drives the world. They're not going to dump the dollar because they don't like what we're doing in Iraq.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

And what IS that, jimmac? Do you mean to tell me that after we invaded and blew the shit out of country, we should leave without finishing the job? How is THAT the right thing?

The problem with you anti-war folks is that you can't separate your disdain for the original decision to go to war with the decisions that must be made now that we're there.

" Finish the job "
Do You mean like what we've been doing?

Continue until there's nothing left but a burnt out shell of a couintry just some other islamic dictator can come in and we'll be right back where we started?

Well we're really close now. The thing is SDW I'm thinking there is no good way to fix this.

Now I know that you used to watch " Star Trek ". They had the " Prime Directive " which wouldn't let them interfere with other cultures because once you do and go down that road maybe there's no fixing it. And when they did in the way you're talking about what happened? Things just kept getting worse.

Where do you think Roddenberry got this analogy?

That's where we are now SDW. The only way we can do some good is leave and now. At least then the Iraqi government has a chance to succeed. Or we can continue on until it's so blatantly hopeless and we'll have to leave.

I do believe in the american spirit and that " Can do " thing. However a country has to pick when it's right and can succeed. In this case it's neither. We might want to be " World Policeman " but the truth is we're just as faillible as anyone else and maybe there's some things we shouldn't get involved with.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Continue until there's nothing left but a burnt out shell of a couintry just some other islamic dictator can come in and we'll be right back where we started?

Well we're really close now. The thing is SDW I'm thinking there is no good way to fix this.

Now I know that you used to watch Star Trek. They had the " Prime Directive " which wouldn't let them interfere with other cultures because once you do and go down that road maybe there's no fixing it. And when they did in the way you're talking about what happened? Things just kept getting worse.

Where do you think Roddenberry got this analogy?

That's where we are now SDW. The only way we can do some good is leave and now. At least then the Iraqi government has a chance to succeed. Or we can continue on until it's so blatantly hopeless and we'll have to leave.

I do believe in the american spirit and that " Can do " thing. However a country has to pick when it's right and can succeed. In this case it's neither. We might want to be " World Policeman " but the truth is we're just as failable as anyone else and maybe there's some things we shouldn't get involved with.

I don't agree. I think that things are moving...albeit slowly...in a good direction now. I don't share your view that we are the problem there. I think we can be part of the solution, and I think that believing "there is no good solution" is simply pessimistic and defeatist thinking.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't agree. I think that things are moving...albeit slowly...in a good direction now. I don't share your view that we are the problem there. I think we can be part of the solution, and I think that believing "there is no good solution" is simply pessimistic and defeatist thinking.

Go rewatch " A Private Little War ".

" This episode is often seen as being a depiction of the Vietnam War, with the conclusion being Gene Roddenberry's statement of reluctant support for it. Although Vietnam is not directly referenced, Kirk and McCoy discuss the balance of power politics of the "Twentieth Century brush wars on the Asian continent" at 43:00 into the televised episode. "

I wouldn't mind working there as a civil engineer in the rebuilding efforts, which I suppose would mean that I would have to live there, for a while. Hopefully, I'd make good on my round trip airline ticket!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

What, precisely, does "finishing the job" mean? Iraq had elections. It has a government. It has a police force.

I understand that point. I just think that we need to clear and hold more and let those forces develop. I'm not saying forever. I would like to see us draw down starting next year. IMO it was mismanaged with ridiculous rules of engagement (i.e what us troops were actually doing on the security front) and with the number of troops....and it should have taken less time. But we are where we are. Leaving right now would not be a good idea.

Quote:

Could you not even muster a call for us to not let the troops die in vain? Because I love that one.

Who says it's in vain? They would die in vain if we pulled out yesterday and let the country collapse on itself. Then the 4,000 dead would be for nothing. If we can stay a little longer and give the security forces and police (and government) a chance to get a handle on things, then begin a slow withdrawal, Iraq will have a better chance of success.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I would call dying in a war that was started over false pretenses and then lengthened at every whim dying in vain.

We created a mess and we keep screwing it up, and our boys and girls are dying along the way; I would call that dying in vain.

Someone attacked A's country under false pretenses and refuse to leave, thus dragging out the conflict. A's family and many of his countrymen have died since the invasion and they continue dying every day; I would call that dying in vain.

"I am a war president", some insecure individual once said. That was his dream; his dad did it and did it right, so he wanted his moment of glory, too. Too bad for everyone he had no clue as to what he was getting into.

Any the dying goes on...

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

I would call dying in a war that was started over false pretenses and then lengthened at every whim dying in vain.

"False pretenses" is misleading, ironically enough. The world intel agencies believed Saddam had weapons, and they were wrong. We were wrong. That doesn't mean the war was started over "false pretenses." Moreover, it really has no bearing on the present. We're there now.

Quote:

We created a mess and we keep screwing it up, and our boys and girls are dying along the way; I would call that dying in vain.

Yes, we created a mess. Then again, we got rid of a tyrant. But I don't know about your statement "we keep screwing it up." We certainly made mistakes..many of them. But that doesn't mean some of those mistakes haven't been fixed. The surge does appear to be having good results in many areas, for example.

It really comes down to what direction you think things are headed. If you think things are getting worse all the time, you're going to want to pull out now. If on the other hand you believe as I do, that we're making slow and steady progress at this point, you support staying longer. Objectively, there has been progress. Its undeniable. So I don't understand how one can hold the first view.

Quote:

Someone attacked A's country under false pretenses and refuse to leave, thus dragging out the conflict.

Refuse? Refuse? I don't accept that we are the sole reason the conflict is drawn out. It's much more than that. If that was true, things would improve instantly upon our withdrawal. Not going to happen.

Quote:

A's family and many of his countrymen have died since the invasion and they continue dying every day; I would call that dying in vain.

Well...that's the nature of war. It's sucks. It doesn't mean people have died for nothing. 300,000 civilians slaughtered under Saddam...THAT was dying for nothing.

Quote:

"I am a war president", some insecure individual once said. That was his dream; his dad did it and did it right, so he wanted his moment of glory, too. Too bad for everyone he had no clue as to what he was getting into.

Any the dying goes on...

Isn't he a war President though? He's been a war President since 9/11/01. It's just a fact. Also, what evidence do you have to suggest that it was his "dream?" You just made that up.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post
If some country had invaded the US and arranged for elections and created a police force, how long would the Americans tolerate their staying in country? Not long at all.

"False pretenses" is misleading, ironically enough. The world intel agencies believed Saddam had weapons, and they were wrong. We were wrong. That doesn't mean the war was started over "false pretenses." Moreover, it really has no bearing on the present. We're there now.

Several years later, Kanjorski said he learned that the pictures were “a god-damned lie,” apparently taken by CIA photographers in the desert in the southwest of the U.S. The drone story itself had already been disproved, although not many major media carried that story.

People (SDW) have a short memory and will forget about these lies sooner than a goldfish.

Typical bullshit obfuscation. You're burying the overall point by focusing on smaller ones. I'm sure there was lying. I'm sure there were inaccuracies. But the judgement of the world intelligence community was that Saddam had weapons. And nothing you can say will change that fact.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I wouldn't mind working there as a civil engineer in the rebuilding efforts, which I suppose would mean that I would have to live there, for a while. Hopefully, I'd make good on my round trip airline ticket!

You'd most likely make an insane amount of money too, FWIW. If I was single, I'd give serious consideration to some of the want ads I've seen for my job specialty. I've seen offers of 2-3x a high end yearly salary in the US, plus matching 401K, etc. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

If some country had invaded the US and arranged for elections and created a police force, how long would the Americans tolerate their staying in country? Not long at all.

The entire crisis wrapped up in one sentence. Brilliant!

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

He is "widely regarded as one of the brightest soldiers of his generation" and has been described as "brilliant" by retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey. On the other hand, Lawrence Korb has called him "the most political general since General [Douglas] MacArthur" and said that "[he] is very ambitious" (adding "and there’s nothing wrong with that").

Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College - class of 1983. He subsequently earned a Master of Public Administration (1985) and a Ph.D. (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy, and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy - class of 1974.

In just one hour, it distills much of what's going on in Iraq and presents it in such a way that the viewer gets a genuine feel for what's happening on the ground. If you see only one program this summer about the war in Iraq, make it Endgame.

The last part of Endgame in which Petraeus (and others) develop the "clear and hold" strategy that is currently underway seemed relevant to this thread.

I don't think anyone doubts the ability of the military to stand it's ground combat-wise, but 'winning' Iraq would take a large amount of political capital that the USA does not currently have.

The Iraqis have shown no desire to work out the differences between the factions, and there is no real investment in the civilian infrastructure, hence anything we do militarily on the ground is merely delaying the inevitable.

It's 1973 all over again.

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

I don't think anyone doubts the ability of the military to stand it's ground combat-wise, but 'winning' Iraq would take a large amount of political capital that the USA does not currently have.

The Iraqis have shown no desire to work out the differences between the factions, and there is no real investment in the civilian infrastructure, hence anything we do militarily on the ground is merely delaying the inevitable.

It's 1973 all over again.

Not even close to 1973. It's not at all the same situation.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't think anyone doubts the ability of the military to stand it's ground combat-wise, but 'winning' Iraq would take a large amount of political capital that the USA does not currently have.

The Iraqis have shown no desire to work out the differences between the factions, and there is no real investment in the civilian infrastructure, hence anything we do militarily on the ground is merely delaying the inevitable.

It's 1973 all over again.

Don't think so! It's 2003 all over again!

I must say the tone of this thread from those on the left is truly naive, IMHO.

Read the tea leaves of BushCo, Inc,™ (and the RNC), hear much from SOD Gates like you did from Rummy?

An R senator gets the boot before he's even had the chance to pull up his pants, for having sex with a ho?

How many neocon artists have been KIA or MIA from the BushCo, Inc.™ administration? Where's Waldo (nee insert any former/current BushCo, Inc.™ neocon artist)?

Bush/Cheney (BC) are in this to the bitter end ( January '09), they (and the RNC) are purposefully distancing themselves from each other. BC will go down with the ship! \

IMHO, expect to see a major change of the Iraqi leadership in the coming months. Expect the US military to continue at current force levels through April '08. Expect the Iraqi's (police/military) to be purged and told to stand up and fight for control of Iraq under the newly seated Iraqi government (or tribal coalition) after April. Expect a US troop reduction (to pre-surge levels at least) during the summer of '08.

And all because we have an election in '08, and if an R wins, guess what? Four more years (in Iraq at least)! \

BTW, did I mention the $63 B in US arms sales over the next 10 years to Middle East friendlies? Did I mention the strategic position Iraq holds in the region (hint hint Iran to the east, Syria to the south)? Did I mention that we are being setup for WWIII and conscription?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

BTW, did I mention the $63 B in US arms sales over the next 10 years to Middle East friendlies? Did I mention the strategic position Iraq holds in the region (hint hint Iran to the east, Syria to the south)? Did I mention that we are being setup for WWIII and conscription?

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

The Iraqis have shown no desire to work out the differences between the factions

Bullshit....there have been several Imams killed in the last few weeks in Anbar province for calling for people to start supporting the US and giving speeches opposing al Qaeda and trying to get talks going between all sides.

This is what really pisses me off about the US media - this is happening but there is no reporting of it...they would rather spin the insurgency as being at each other's throats because they are barbarians...I would call this an Islamophobic agenda but it may just be stupidity.

In any event it is a grave disservice to Iraqis who are risking their lives and saving US lives. Ayatollah Sistani for example has been holding the lid on things for duration of the occupation.

No credit though.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Bullshit....there have been several Imams killed in the last few weeks in Anbar province for calling for people to start supporting the US and giving speeches opposing al Qaeda and trying to get talks going between all sides.

OK, I did generalize somewhat, I know there are some areas/communities that have been holding the line, but the highlighted portion shows what I'm getting at. Yes, there is a moderate voice out there, but it is minor and violently suppressed by the factions fighting the civil war. (let's be honest and call it what it is)

Quote:

The unity government of Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, has been plunged deeper into crisis after five ministers withdrew from cabinet meetings, less than a week after the main Sunni Arab bloc quit. Seventeen ministers - nearly half of al-Maliki's cabinet - have now quit or are boycotting meetings, leaving it with no Sunni members. -Al Jazeera

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

OK, I did generalize somewhat, I know there are some areas/communities that have been holding the line, but the highlighted portion shows what I'm getting at. Yes, there is a moderate voice out there, but it is minor and violently suppressed by the factions fighting the civil war. (let's be honest and call it what it is)

Yes, but maybe they do not receive enough support from the US?

If they felt that they had 'back-up' such voices might grow, As it is now, hardly anyone hears about it and those risking it just get killed with still hardly anyone hearing about it...

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Typical bullshit obfuscation. You're burying the overall point by focusing on smaller ones. I'm sure there was lying. I'm sure there were inaccuracies. But the judgement of the world intelligence community was that Saddam had weapons. And nothing you can say will change that fact.

Nothing will change the fact that you are a total moron either on this issue.

Again, show me the the world intelligence community information or agreements that he had WMD (and don't forget Poland). What are you talking about? The coalition of the willing? Give me a break. The reason you fail in this argument is that you never cite or source your arguments or statements. Because there aren't any. Go watch an Eagles game or something.